I have a friend whos perspective is always well thought out and worth considering, even when we dont agree. I call him a truth addict in that he is usually more attached to finding out whats true than in being right. He recently sent me this about media bias, and I thought it might be of interest: Its frustrating that its so hard to find a fair-and-balanced news source. I can easily see the biases to sources such as those in that link, and agree that they are often crafted to appeal to the priors of their readership. The trouble is, the same is true of the NYT. The NYT times looks to people on the right the way Fox News and Glenn Beck look to people on the left. So I wind up forwarding articles from both the NYT. But its not because Im particularly happy with the coverage. But simply because there are certain stories and angles that Fox News will *never* cover. Because doing so would anger and alienate their readership, their advertisers, and the political priors of the editorial staff. So Im left with the NYTs coverage, which is deeply flawed but at least it exists. It has shrill and one-sided coverage that is obvious to anyone who consumes journalism outside of the NYT force field. Coverage that is as shrill and one-sided as anything from Fox News. But at least it exists. Likewise with other topics. There are truths that NYT will never cover, or will only mention in passing while buried in another piece. So Im forced to go to these other sources, and accept their coverage, shrill one-sided warts and all. Fox News is wrong about a lot of things, but at least they are talking about them. There is an old joke that says that every story you read in your favorite newspaper is absolutely true. . . except for that rare story of which you have independent knowledge. *Thats* when you find out just how much journalism gets wrong. One of the advantages of certain portions of my life is that these multiple news sources covered events for which I had that independent knowledge. Which gave me some insight into how these various sources distort things. I was there. . so go ahead and tell me *your* version of events. I accept that my memory, and my version, may be wrong. I am human. . mea culpa. But I notice that whenever your version and mine disagree, its always in the same direction. Even on topics for which there is independent third-party evidence. Hmmmm. Maybe thats my failure. . but maybe. . just maybe. . it might be yours? The NYT has a fine and well-deserved reputation for quality journalism. . . provided the topic at hand doesnt violate any of their core values and assumptions. Outside those hot-button issues, the NYT is a fine publication. Inside those hot-button topics, you need to be very careful. Im not sure how much the distortion is deliberate, or even conscious, but no one with independent knowledge of those topics can fail to notice it. And a huge number of newspapers and other publications take their lead from the NYT. For better or worse, they get to define the terms for a great many matters of interest to liberals, in some of the same way that the Vatican gets to to define Catholicism. The Seattle Times isnt merely the newspaper on the West coast that *happens* to have many of the same opinions as the NYT. It largely *gets* its opinions from the NYT. The NYT is a fashion leader on many topics, and tells suitably inclined people what they *should* think. If you doubt this, examine how the editorial coverage of ACA varied in newspapers over time. A lot of self-described liberal newspapers were waffling on ObamaCare, leaning toward negative. Until the NYT decided to cast in on the positive side. And then the editorial stance changed starkly. And then watch how opinions in the field changed. A great many people wait for their preferred oracles to tell them how they should think. This is true on both the left and the right. But to be fair, this isnt unique to the NYT. Every such source I have looked at had this problem. To different degrees, and sometimes on different topics, but its always there. The Christian Science Monitor has excellent and relatively unbiased coverage on many subjects. But they do have an editorial PoV, and when you approach topics that impinge on that PoV, you need to be careful. _Reason_ and _WSJ_ have their own biases and blind spots. And they all have legions of similarly aligned newspapers and websites, accepting canon from the approved sources. And folks who accept that canon, because the social group in which they most want to get laid accepts that canon. This is the right-aligned version of the left-aligned newspapers and websites and social groups connected with the NYT. Objectivity is *really* hard. And it often angers people. Alas, it doesnt anger them in the way that improves circulation or advertising revenue. People dont *have to* read the news. Its a luxury they pay for, (or the advertisers pay for) and few people are willing to pay to have their priors violated. A truly objective news wouldnt be the kind of news you could watch while collapsed on the couch, zoning out at the end of a hard day. It would be challenging to hear, and even more challenging to understand. A few decades ago, the bias that the NYT has mattered less, because there were more newspapers. It was easier to gather a range of opinion and coverage. However, the economics of newspapers have changed, and NYT is one of the few Grand Newspapers left in the US. Thats unfortunate, because the NYT coverage of many topics, even those hot-button topics, is important. But increasingly, the NYT POV is no longer *a* point of view on these topics. It has become *the* point of view for a particular kind of liberal. Its naive to expect the NYT to adopt a more balanced and inclusive position merely because it has become such a dominant newspaper after the demise of its competitors. Thats not how it works. If Apple put Android out of business, they arent going to incorporate Android features into iOS, in the interests of balance and inclusion. The news, as presented by any newspaper but especially the NYT, is a very particular *product*. Balance and objectivity are two of the ingredients in that product, but they arent the only ones, and often they arent even the important ones.
Posted on: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 07:38:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015